Shri Ravinder Kumar Ahuja HUF, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6345/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4006 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P J KHANNA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 6345/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6345/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEA R: 2008-09) APPELLANT BY SH. P.J.KHANNA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. ATIQ AHMAD, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 03.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 5 .10.2017 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 29.09.2014 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA L) -XXVI, NEW DELHI FOR 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ANNUAL VALUE O F THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 4, UMA NAGAR, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD-50001 6 AT RS. 261840/- AS AGAINST THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y AS PER MUNICIPAL RECORDS AT RS.35306/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME (ROI) SHOWING INCOME OF RS.5,11,27,630/- ON 30.09.2008. THE CASE WAS PROCES SED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) RAVINDER KUMAR AHUJA HUF, M/S. P.N.KHANNA & COMPANY, CA, 14-15F, SHIVAM HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001. PAN-AAAHR2891E VS ACIT, CIRCLE-33(1), NEW DELHI-110002. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NO. 6345/DEL/2014 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2009-10, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY RENTAL INCOME FROM ITS RESIDENTIA L HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT HYDERABAD WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY ONE OF THE RELAT IVES OF KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HUF. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER RECORDING REASONS, THE CASE OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS REOPENED. THE HOUSE PROPERTY SI TUATED AT HYDERABAD WAS ADMITTEDLY OCCUPIED BY THE WIFE OF LATE ELDER BROTH ER OF KARTA OF THE APPELLANT HUF AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY RENT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER, ON THE BASIS OF LOCAL ENQUIRY CONDUCTED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE ITO(INV .) HYDERABAD; DETAILS OF WHICH WERE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AY 2009-10, WORKED OUT THE ANNUAL VALUE (AV) OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATE D AT HYDERABAD AT RS.2,61,840/-. AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 24(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATE D AT HYDERABAD AT RS.1,75,784/- AND TAXED IT ACCORDINGLY. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLE NGING THE TAXABILITY OF NOTIONAL RENTAL INCOME BY RAISING ONE AND ONLY GROU ND AS UNDER: 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY SITUATED AT 4, UMA NAGAR, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD-500016 AT RS.2,61,840/- AS AGAINST THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER MUNICIPAL RECOR DS AT RS.35,306/-.' 3 ITA NO. 6345/DEL/2014 5. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PERSUADE HIMSELF WITH THE FINDING OF HIS PREDECE SSOR IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE CA PITAL ANNUAL VALUE (AV) AT RS.2,61,840/- FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL ANNUAL VA LUE (AV) AND THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT HYDERABAD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INCOME WO RKED OUT FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT HYDERABAD WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FIL ED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, NEW DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10 BEING ITA NO. 338/DEL/2013 THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE ISS UE CONTESTED HEREIN IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ITAT. TH EREFORE, THIS APPEAL HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED HIS PREDEC ESSORS ORDER. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT, TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ITAT IN REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 HELD AS UNDER:- 4 ITA NO. 6345/DEL/2014 7. GROUND NO. 3 IS ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF NOT IONAL RENT ON THE PROPERTY AT HYDERABAD. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A F INDING THAT THE PROPERTY AT HYDERABAD IS SUBJECT TO RENT CONTROL LE GISLATION AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES MUNICIPAL VALUATION IS AD OPTED AS THE ANNUAL VALUE U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO I NFIRMITY IN THIS FINDING. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. THUS, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN A.Y. 2009-10. IN FACT, THE CIT(A) ORDER ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER WHICH WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE INCONSISTENT STAND BY THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT PROPER WHEN THE ISSU ES ARE SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEREIN THE DEPARTMENT HAS VERIFIED ALL THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND AFTER VERIFYING THE SAME ALLOWED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:- 05.10.2017 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA NO. 6345/DEL/2014 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED 04.10.2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04.10.2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 5.10.2017 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 5.10.2017 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.